Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Intelligent design controversy (view source)
Revision as of 15:15, April 8, 2008
, 15:15, April 8, 2008nice try
Now I'm not going to bother editing the page, since I know it would merely be reverted, but i felt the need to point out the necessary [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Now I'm not going to bother editing the page, since I know it would merely be reverted, but i felt the need to point out the necessary [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:ID opponents generally pretend that they "don't get the point", but this is simply because to address what ID is saying would be the first of a series of lost battles which would end in their utter defeat. The comment above exemplifies this trend.
:ID does not point to any godlike figure but makes the point that natural causes alone cannot account for the design of complex organisms, whether organs or cells. Materialism has no argument to account for the appearance of design for anything for complicated than salt crystals or snowflakes. "It evolved that way, and designs that can't compete are weeded out."
:Materialists dismiss the appearance of design because their philosophical assumptions preclude any alternative. To distract attention from the weakness of basis of their atheism, they pretend that ID's anti-evolutionary critique is a front for Creationism. My advice to them is the same as what Raggs wrote above: "But don't mistake a good attack on evolution, with any sort of positive evidence for any other approach." ID is not an argument '''for''' creation; rather it is an argument '''against''' evolution.
:It is because atheists and materialists don't want their arguments to be examined that they imprison, expel or fire anyone who dares challenge them. In the [[marketplace of ideas]], their product would not sell, so they insist on having a [[monopoly]].
:Evolution cannot account for [[molecular devices]]. The rules of the "game" state that if you can't show how gradual changes could accumulate, then your theory doesn't hold water. It is the [[irreducible complexity]] of the [[eye]] and the [[flagellum]], among many other examples, which show that natural forces alone are insufficient to account for the design of complex organs and cells.
:By the way, a [[square root]] can be calculated without a machine, using procedures known to mathematicians centuries before the invention of electronic calculators. So "can't explain it" really does mean "the theory simply is no good"; see [[theory and fact]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)